We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day Two years ago a South Korean woman reportedly asked a North Korean why President Kim Jong Il was the only fat man in the country, and was detained for several days as a result.
– from a Christian Science Monitor report about a small tourist enclave in North Korea, run by the Hyundai Coporation of South Korea and visited mainly by South Koreans.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Well Kim Jong Il has to eat a lot – first of all to feed his enormous brain; his great intellectual capacities which enable him to rule wisely and make North Korea one of the most prosperous nations in the World put a great strain on his diet habits.
Plus he must care about his appearances; what would people think if their dear leader was thin, skinny and ill-looking – they would think that he is sick, or worse that things are not going in the right direction.
And for the whole world he represents North Korea, so he mustn’t look weak, or the imperialists and their South Koreans capitalist stooges would try to exploit his weakness and do harm to the glorious endeavor of building a communist paradise.
And don’t call him fat! He is just muscular!
Off Topic:
Here is another candidate for “quote of the day”:
“Revolutions are prepared by dreamers,” he said. “And I always recall 1917: They are carried out by fanatics, and they are exploited by scoundrels.”
Leonid Kuchma, outgoing president of the Ukraine.
Jacob,
Are we treating the American revolution, the revolutions of 1989, etc. as falling under the same rubric?
Gary,
The first part : “Revolutions are prepared by dreamers”
applies.
The second part applies to 1917.
In 1989 there was no revolution, rather a disolution.
I would think that the opposite holds true of the American revolution. It was planned by scoundrels (Thomas Paine) and carried out by (religious, by modern standards) fanatics (George Washington) and dreamers (Ben Franklin).
Kuchma, being no small scoundrel himself, knows what he is talking about.
Jacob,
“The Velvet Revolution” wasn’t a revolution? Havel might disagree with you.
And the 1917 statement doesn’t clearly state it applies to 1917, given that it starts with “They…”; seems more like an example rather an observation about only a particular revolution.
Gary,
Jacob is right, I am afraid (and it really doesnt matter what Havel might think or believe), calling the events of 1989 a “revolution” is stretching the concept a bit.
lemuel kolkava,
How exactly is it “stretching” the concept?
Gary,
Revolutions are considered to be violent overthrows of the old regime.
The “revolutions” in majority of postcommunist countries were not violent and were not complete overthrows of the old regime either. Many political scientists consider them to be transitions, hinting that it might have been orchestrated to some point (initial) by the old elites themselves. The old and new elites sat down to the discussion tables and negotiated a deal, from which transitional governments that included communists and dissidents and and an agreement on free elections arose. We might argue about the particulars, but all in all, I don’t think that the concept of revolutions fully captures these events.
In fact, revolution that needs adjectives like “velvet”, or “negotiated” might sound more poetical, but it is not a real revolution, in my opinion.
lemuel kolkava,
No, sorry, revolutions need not be “violent.” Your comments suffer from the fallacy of an underinclusive definition.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:revolution
“In fact, revolution that needs adjectives like “velvet”, or “negotiated” might sound more poetical, but it is not a real revolution, in my opinion.”
In 1989 it would have been a revolution if they had rounded up and guillotined the communists quilty of mass murder. At least SOME de-cummunistification would have been in order. Instead – most of the communist functionaries continued in positions of power.
Though justice suffered in the process, I’m not really bloodthirsty, and have nothing against velevt revolutions. It’s only the name that is inappropiate. Call it maybe velevt transition, or a partial abdication by the usurpers, scoundrels and the murderes.
Let’s not be part of mangling and distorting concepts (like the concept: liberal), let’s reserve the word revolution for epic and glorious struggles. (A failed revolution is called a putsh).
Jacob,
…let’s reserve the word revolution for epic and glorious struggles.
The word “revolution” has been applied to all sorts of events – like the industrial revolution – over there years, and there is no reason to define it as you would like (indeed, the applying it to political movements is a bastardization of its first uses a means to describe how celestial bodies orbit one another).
Gary,
Again, I beg to differ
The political sciences (and their subdivision – transitology) have reserved the term revolution for “a sudden, violent, bloody change of the regime”. I agree with Jacob that this term should not be watered down whenever we feel like using it.
Even if we disregard the element of violence, the governments weren’t overthrown in the popular sense, they negotiated the terms of their gradual abdication – this is a crucial moment. What we have witnessed in Middle (Eastern) Europe weren’t revolutions but negotiated transitions.
I mean, what kind of a revolution it would be, that was self-limiting? What kind of a revolution it would be, that lacks the revolutionaries?
The regimes were slowly loosing power, they collapsed, and this created a power vacuum, which in turn enabled the otherwise hapless and not very politically savvy intellectuals and dissidents to assume strategic positions in the political arena. This and the relative symbolic-political capital bestowed upon them by the protesters (and not vicious bloodthirsty mobs) gave them some edge over their opponents at the following negotiations with the regime.
In conclusion, I would remain very careful in applying the term revolution to political changes.
lemuel kolkava,
You can beg to differ all you want to, you’re still wrong. A revolution need not be violent.
The political sciences…
Citation please.
…the governments weren’t overthrown in the popular sense, they negotiated the terms of their gradual abdication – this is a crucial moment.
This connotes a complete ignorance of events in Poland in 1988-1989; the government didn’t “negotiate” anything; it was allowed to stay in power nominally whilst Solidarity figured out what it wanted to do; I suggest you read Davies regarding these events.
The American revolution was clearly “self-limiting”; and declaring (by implication) that the Solidarity movement wasn’t full of revolutionaries is plainly sophistry.
You sound like these losers naysaying the events in the Ukraine.
Mr. Gunnels, there is no need for you to get testy.
First of all, please don’t impose your impressions on my beliefs about the events in Ukraine. You know nothing about them.
Although I have never heard of that Davies fellow, I have noticed that your position is similar to the one Giddens has in his book “Sociology”, where he claims that the events in question were revolutionary.
You draw on Poland as your example; I draw my conclusions mostly from the Czechoslovak case, which I know fairly well. It is funny, though, that the Polish case you cite is considered a prime example of the negotiated transition, with their round-table talks.
Government didn’t “negotiate” anything; it was allowed to stay in power nominally whilst Solidarity figured out what it wanted to do
There, you said it yourself; the governments were left nominally in power. Is that your idea of a revolution? As I wrote, the governments were loosing their power, they were collapsing and that’s when their opponents received their opportunity to move in, which they did, after they figured what to do, as you so eloquently put it. And the best they could think of was to start talks with the communists. Again, that’s not really my idea of a revolution.
I have a few sources, though most are not available in English.
I tend to agree with Professor Sona Szomolanyi, Slovak political scientist; her position is similar to mine and almost the exact opposite to that of Giddens.
Sona Szomolanyi: Klukata cesta Slovenska k demokracii (Meandering Path of Slovakia Towards Democracy). Bratislava 1999
Then there is Rudolf Tokes: Hungary’s Negotiated Revolution (1996).
And when I wrote “what kind of a revolution it would be, that was self-limiting? What kind of a revolution it would be, that lacks the revolutionaries?” I was paraphrasing Petr Pithart. And since you are such an expert, you know who that is, don’t you?
Anyway, I will probably have to grant you the fact that many people will probably go on and call it a revolution, despite all the reservations we could have against such frivolous uses.
You can beg to differ all you want to, you’re still wrong.
I am glad you are so cocksure, but a little humility never hurt anybody. The question whether it was or was not a revolution, in my opinion, is still not closed.
Regards,
lemuel
Hilarious!
Revolution can have multiple meanings under differing circumstances, just like a great many words,. And all of these meanings can be correct. The industrial revolution was a revolution, so was the american and soviet ones (although the soviet one has a lot more complexity to it)
Additionally the movement of heavenly bodies can also be defined with revolution, theyre all correct meanings, or can be. C’mon people, the english language wasnt made up by some guy or comittee at one point and bound to form since. Words are informally added and the old words can be reused for new meanings. Languages do evolve and change.
Well, I was there during the Velvet Revolution, right in the middle of the dissident gaggle and I agree with Lemuel and others. It was not a revolution but a ‘transition’ for the very reasons they cite – negotation with the communist criminals and no de-communisation afterwards. This is spot on: